3.9 Article

Anastomotic Leak Testing After Colorectal Resection What Are the Data?

Journal

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 407-411

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2009.43

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ethicon Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the value of anastomotic leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses. Design: Cohort analysis. Setting: Subspecialty practice at a tertiary care facility. Patients: Consecutive subjects were selected from a prospective colorectal database of 2627 patients treated between January l, 2001, and December 31, 2007. Intervention: Creation of left-sided colorectal anastomoses and air leak testing per surgeon preference. Main Outcomes Measures: Anastomosis type, method (handsewn vs stapled), performance of air leak testing, repair method of anastomoses after air leak tests yielding positive results, and development of postoperative clinical leak. Results: A total of 998 left-sided colorectal anastomoses were performed without proximal diversion; 90.1% were stapled and 9.9% were handsewn. Intraoperative air leaks were noted in 65 of 825 tested anastomoses (7.9%), that is, 7.8% of stapled anastomoses and 9.5% of handsewn anastomoses. A clinical leak developed in 48 patients(4.8%). Clinical leaks were noted in 7.7% of anastomoses with positive air leak test results compared with 3.8% of anastomoses with negative air leak test results and 8.1% of all untested anastomoses (P < .03). If air leak testing yielded positive results, suture repair alone was associated with the highest rate of postoperative clinical leak compared with diversion or re-anastomosis, 12.2% vs 0% vs 0%, respectively (P = .19). Conclusions: Our data indicate a high rate of air leaks at air leak testing of left-sided colorectal anastomoses. In addition, the high rate of clinical leaks in untested anastomoses leads us to recommend air leak testing of all left-sided anastomoses, whether stapled or handsewn.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available